Jackendoff (1987, 1990) has brought up various problems with the current use of thematic roles (Kiparsky, 1987; Bresnan & Kanerva, 1989 and references cited therein) and suggested a different way of thinking of thematic roles as structural configurations in his semantic Lexical Conceptual Structures (LCSs). Conversely, Joshi (1989) has claimed that Jackendoff’s LCSs alone are insufficient, and that an analysis of certain facts in Marathi additionally requires the existence of a level of predicate-argument structure (PAS). Below we will mention a few of Jackendoff’s arguments against the current conception of thematic roles. We will then look at Joshi’s arguments about the necessity of a level of PAS in addition to LCS and conclude that providing Jackendoff’s LCSs are integrated into a suitable syntactic theory, neither of her points are problematic to Jackendoff.1 From there we will go on to re-examine some of the facts of Marathi, and show that certain facts that have merely been stipulated or left unanalyzed when using thematic roles, receive a rather elegant treatment when described via a combination of their syntax and LCS.